Food Technology 2014 DEVELOPMENT OF GLUTEN-FREE MILK-FREE FRENCH BREAD By Annette Bentley
Gluten-Free/Milk-Free Bread A search for palatable and tasty gluten-free/milk free breads was performed in both local food stores and on the internet. Gluten-free bread found in local groceries were only available in the freezer. Only items were milk free. These included bagels and a roll. On line one company provided slice bread along with hamburger and hot dog buns. However, the bread products found in store often were freezer burned, often not tasty and had limited selection.
Celiac Disease A gluten-free diet for life is recommended for Celiacs 1 milligram of gluten a day causes damage of the intestinal mucosa. European labeling gluten-free allows <200 ppm. A total of 300 mg. of gliadin/kg. found in products labeled gluten free (Biagi, 2004). Despite lack of symptoms, continued inflammatory damage occurs because of unknown consumption of gluten (Catassi, 2007).
Gluten Gluten grains identified in the gliadin protein found in when, triticale, rye, barley, & oats (Charbonnier,1980 and Ylimarki,1989). FDA Ruling: label a product may be labeled gluten free if final product does not contain wheat, barley rye or cross-bred of these grains, e.g. triticale. Note: Oats are not covered FDA Ruling states: the final product contains < 200 ppm
Assays for Gluten-Free Several assay analysis tests are available but they differ widely in their results. This provides serious concerns on the validity of gluten-testing procedures for labeling.
Baking Gluten-Free Low specific volume and hard crumb are associated with gluten-free baking (Miñarro, 2010). Hydrocolloids: Guar gum, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, and xanthium gum and buckwheat flour, egg powder and whey protein are suggested to formulate gluten-free bread (Mezaize, 2009). Gluten-free flours do not have elasticity of gluten. Denser, need flours starches & emulsifiers for texture & taste (Hazen,2011)
GLUTEN-CONTAINING GRAINS 1. BARLEY 2. KAMUT 3. OATS 4. RYE 5. SPELT 6. WHEAT 7. AND CULTIVATED PRODUCTS FROM THESE GRAINS
GLUTEN-FREE The products that are glutenfree DO NOT contain the prolamins of wheat, namely α-, β-,γ-, and ω gliadin subgroups causing the damage to the intestinal villi to individual with Celiac Disease.
Identified Gluten-Free Sources Acorns Almond Amaranth Arrowroot Bean flour Buckwheat Coconut Corn Guar Gum Quinoa Palm Poi Potato Rice Sorgum Soy Sweet Rice Sweet Potato Tapioca Teff Xanthum Gum
Milk Substitutes Coconut Milk Rice Milk Soy Milk Almond Corn
OBJECTIVES 1. Determine the availability of breads that are both gluten-free products and milk-free. 2. Determine what key sensory problems exist with available gluten-free breads. 3. Develop a gluten-free milk-free French Bread.
HYPOTHESIS Currently, there is an inadequate supply and variety of quality tasting gluten-free bread that are also milk-free. There was no French or Italian bread It is possible to create such a product that would be totally acceptable to meet this need.
ASSUMPTIONS Using alternative gluten-free grain(s) it is possible to develop a gluten-free French bread and/or Italian bread. This could be used to create a Po- Boy or muffalatta sandwich
LIMITATIONS Gluten-free grains do not have the elasticity and texture of the gluten grains. This means to create similar products requires using several ingredients. This is necessary to create the same texture and taste of the gluten product.
JUSTIFICATION Serious need to provide a quality & larger supply of bread both gluten-free and milk-free to meet dietary needs. Celiac disease affects 1% of individuals in the United States (Fasano, 2003). Autism estimate to affect over 673,000 in the United States (Johnson, 2009). Milk is the most common of food allergies (Gonipeta, 2009). Additionally, many individuals suffer from wheat allergies.
STORE SURVEY At total of 14 grocery and specialty stores were surveyed to identify available gluten-free bread The stores surveyed were located in Louisiana. Some products were available in stores. In many cases the some products contained milk and all products were found in the freezer with ice particles in them.
Moisture Analysis of Flours Flour %Moisture Stand. Dev. Tapioca 10.67 0.22 Rice 11.06 0.07 Potato 6.51 1.19 White Bean 11.12 1.54 Tapioca 75%/Potato 25% 9.99 0.02 Tapioca 75%/White Bean25% 11.92 1.53 Rice 75%/Potato 25% 9.52 0.05 Rice 75%/White Bean 10.11 1.19 Tapioca 50%/Rice 50% 10.50 0.02 Tapioca 50%/Potato 50% 7.63 0.19 Tapioca 50%/White Bean 50% 9.96 0.40 Rice 50%/Potato 50% 8.37 0.36 Rice 50%/White Bean 50% 9.81 0.34 Potato 50%/White Bean 50% 9.62 2.05 Wheat 10.75 0.55
RVA Comparison of Flours Flour Peak 1 Through 1 Break down Final Visc Setback Total Setback Peak Time Pasting Time Potato 50% Bean 50% Rice 50% Potato 50% Tapioca 50% Rice 50 % Tapioca 50 % Bean 50% Rice 50% Bean 50% Rice 75% Bean 50% Rice 75% Potato 25% Tapioca 75% Bean 25% 253 249 4 480 227 231 7 80 934 810 124 1537 603 727 5.73 85.6 2247 1518 729 2413 166 895 5.4 74.5 1567 1118 449 1655 88 537 5.27 76.1 568 570-2 1892 1324 1322 7 94.3 87.68 86.92 0.67 249.2 161.7 162.3 6.67 94.3 113.5 99.92 13.6 203.5 90 103.5 6 94.3 209.7 116 93.7 180.8-28.92 64.8 4.73 76.1
RVA Comparison of Flours Test Tapioca 75% Potato 25% Rice 50% Potato 25% Bean 25% Peak 1 Through 1 Break down Final Visc Setback Total Setback Peak Time 273.7 120.9 153.1 188.1-85.58 68.2 4.33 76 Pasting Time 826 806 20 1805 979 999 6.2 84.9 Wheat 100% 103.3 18 25.3 148.3 45.1 70.3 5.9 90.4 Rice 100% 190.9 145.4 45.5 354.4 163.5 209 5.73 85 Potato 100% 130.1 75.25 54.8 114.3-15.8 39.1 2.8 84 Tapioca 100% 377.9 159.2 218.8 277.5-100.4 118.3 4.13 72 Bean 100% 14.83 15-0.2 47.17 32.33 32.17 6.93 76
RVA Analyses of Flours Triplicate analyses of rice, tapioca, potato, bean and what flours were performed. Analyses of 50/50 combinations rice, tapioca, bean and potato flours. Analyses of 75/25 combinations of rice, tapioca, bean and potato flours. Analyses of the combination of 50% rice/25% potato/25% bean flour. This was done to determine the viscoelastic behavior of the gluten-free flours and compare to wheat flour. Comparison revealed the 50/50 combination of rice/bean and the rice 50/bean 25/potato 25 were the closest creep recovery and viscoelastic behaviors compared to wheat
Graph 50/50 Flour Combinations & Wheat
Graph Combination 75%/25% Flours & Wheat
Graph Flour Combinations Rice 50%/Bean 25%/Potato 25% & Rice 50%/Bean50% & Wheat 100%
Graph of Individual Flours
Texture Analyses of Breads Texture analyses was performed on the wheat, rice/bean, and rice/potato/bean French bread developed. This was done to determine the quality of bread including hardness, adhesiveness, resilience, cohesive, springiness, gumminess, and chewiness
Texture Analyses of Breads Bread Adhesiv e-ness Hardness Resilience Cohes -ive Spring -ness Gumm i-ness Chewi ness Rice/Bean Average 10.1-0.02 51.11 0.873 48.76 8.9 4.763 Rice/Bean St.Dev 0.53 0.635 0.25 0.017 12.09 0.636 0.905 Rice/Bean Rice/Potato/ Bean Rice/Potato/ Bean Rice/Potato/ Bean Coeff of Var 5.24 885 0.49 1.961 24.79 5.232 21.23 Average 10.8 0.32 52.0 0.608 30.51 6.406 2.497 St.Dev 1.53 0.575 15.4 0.421 21.70 4.68 1.784 Coeff of Var 14.2 179.6 29.62 69.20 71.11 73.06 71.47 Wheat Average 10.1-0.243 43.51 0.808 67.52 8.13 5.484 Wheat St. Dev 0.15 0.502 6.647 0.026 8.542 0.162 0.642 Wheat Coeff of Var 1.51 206.3 15.28 3.215 12.66 1.991 11.71
Rice 50%/Bean 50% Bread Combination Texture Analyses Force (g) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Hardness 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time (sec) -500
Rice 50%, Bean 25%, & Potato 25 Bread Texture Analyses Force (g) 1 23 456 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 Hardness 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time (sec) -20-40
Wheat Bread Texture Analyses Force (g) 1 23 456 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 Hardness 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time (sec) -20-40
Color Analyses Color analyses of the French Bread was performed using the Minola CR 200 Meter. Sample Rice/Bean Bread Rice/Potato/ Bean Bread Wheat Bread # of Sample L* Mean L* StdDev A* Mean A StdDev * B* Mean B StdDev 3 73.6 5.78-0.89 0.99 16.9 1.82 3 70.8 2.85-0.71 0.27 17.3 1.85 7 73.1 2.02-0.96 0.43 16.6 0.95
Non-Celiac Population Sensory Evaluation General public of non-celiac subjects in sensory study using the hedonic scale of 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (extremely like) One gluten-free French Bread 50% rice flour & 50% bean flour. A second sample was 50% rice flour, 25% potato flour, & 25% bean flour. The subjects rated the gluten-free breads a marginally acceptable. There was a significant difference in the acceptance of the wheat bread compared to the gluten-free with an F value of 18.35 and Alpha level of <.0001
Celiac Population Sensory Study Celiac subjects were recruited to participate in a sensory study of the glutenfree breads. The Celiac population, the target subjects, of the French bread sensory results indicated both gluten-free breads as acceptable with hedonic rating over 5 in the 9 point scale.
CONCLUSION Store search indicate a lack of sufficient gluten-free milk-free bread products. Sensory studies of both the non-celiac and Celiac population statically show the 2 gluten-free milk-free French breads are acceptable. Because of the multiple gluten-free grains there is a potential to develop highly acceptable gluten-free milk free French, Italian and other breads.